Post by notdarkyet on Feb 7, 2013 20:41:41 GMT -5

I just got done watching Silver Linings Playbook... I quite enjoyed it, but I'm still pretty surprised at all the award attention it got. Cooper is as good as I guess he can be (and he actually is quite good) as this character, Jennifer Lawrence lets it all out and overacts a good deal here, but her nomination is understandable in the context of the movie and its tone, DeNiro hasn't been this good in anything in at least 15 years, and someone mentioned earlier that Chris Tucker was surprisingly good (which kind of made me go "eh?") and he was shockingly reserved and good, here. The writing was probably the weakest point of the movie, certain plot points really serve no purpose and a lot of the dialogue is just noticeably unrealistic even for a movie with such a ridiculous tone as this. Even if the writing could have been a whole lot stronger, it's still not remotely bad... the characters are interesting and eccentric and carry some of the overwrought dialogue and more head-scratching sequences in the movie. Aside from that, the movie is fairly basic and a very satisfying view, in my opinion, even if it can be a bit silly for its own good and is overly predictable... but, these days, unpredictability is often overrated. A strong ***1/2 out of 5, I would recommend at least giving it a shot to almost anyone.

Great review, with you all the way on it. Overall I enjoyed the movie but the whole parlay business and more specifically the scene where Jennifer Lawrence turns into a sports savant really annoyed me. Yay gambling!

Post by Jones Jupiter on Feb 7, 2013 21:42:13 GMT -5

and the second time I simply said that I liked it even better. It seems to be pretty polarizing, and I think a lot of people are looking for specific meaning in something that I honestly don't think has a simple, single meaning.

It was definitely my favorite film of the year as well (even after seeing Django).

At first watch I thought it centered around the idea of being your own master. But that goes against Anderson's typical films in which they seem to have no meaning at all. They typically focus on various relationships and this film obviously revolves around the bond between Hoffman (man with no answers, though he acts as if he has them all) and Phoenix (who originally isn't interested in answers).

Punch Drunk Love could have multiple meanings as well but it mainly focuses on a weak man at his breaking point finding love. And Boogie Nights is obviously all about relationships (Dirk and Amber, Dirk and Jack, Dirk and Scottie). I'm with you though, no simple meaning here. Once again it seems to be more about their connection than anything.

Food for thought: Anderson's characters thrive only when in these relationships. Sandler gains confidence and strength when he finds love. Think of who he is at the beginning of the film and what he becomes at the end during his face to face confrontation with Hoffman's character. Dirk's life is awful without Amber and Jack Horner. Before he deals with a verbally abusive mother and after he falls into addiction. Yet he flourishes during their golden years (while they're all still together of course). The Master is no different. Phoenix gains purpose and blooms into Hoffman's right hand man. Hoffman needs weak characters like Phoenix's to further spread his philosophy. All of these characters are ultimately codependent and struggle on their own.

Post by nuevodudezer47 on Feb 8, 2013 0:15:15 GMT -5

Oh yeah, it was pretty great. Can't really say too much, the less you know going in the better. Lots of themes hit upon in this movie, and it definitely has that dark edge to it that There Will Be Blood had, but still had a little bit of the comedy P.T. would use in some of his earlier movies. Just after one viewing tonight, I'd say it's not as good as Boogie Nights or There Will Be Blood, but it's about on the level of Magnolia, and I'd say better than Punch Drunk Love and Hard Eight. Though, I think all of those movies are at least very good. In essence, superb film, check it out.

The Master, as I said above, isn't near PT Anderson's best, but it is still great. It's almost carried by the performances, here... I could nitpick the movie, but it's so extremely well done that it really doesn't matter. After talking to some other people who saw it, I agree with some that it seems like certain themes were thrown into the story just to keep it a little more interesting, as the movie... doesn't really actually do that much. It's a really quite minimalist movie, more so than There Will Be Blood (and I don't know if minimalist is the right word... maybe, understated?), and from an artistic point of view, it's really hard to find anything getting a wide theatrical release that can even compete with it.

and the second time I simply said that I liked it even better. It seems to be pretty polarizing, and I think a lot of people are looking for specific meaning in something that I honestly don't think has a simple, single meaning.

I do think there are details that perhaps clue you in on what PTA is getting at. It's not necessarily about meaning, but about character motivation. And I do think this is the single most misinterpreted movie of the year. At it's center, I think it's a movie about sexuality disguised as a movie about religion. I think people should draw their own conclusions about that, but here are a few details I think are pretty key to understanding what PTA is doing here:

1) Freddie was molested by his aunt when he was a kid after losing both his parents. You want to understand the genesis of his complicated sexuality, it's pretty important to start there.

2) When Freddie and Lancaster try to have a private conversation about Freddie beating up the vocal dissenter at the fundraiser, Peggy on more than one occasion make sure the door is open. If you've ever grown up in a church, that type of behavior is generally done to keep people from thinking of or talking about the possibility of sexual misconduct by a clergyman with the person they're talking to. But Freddie is a male implying that perhaps there has been talk of homosexual affairs between Lancaster and some of his followers.

3) When Freddie gets drunk at the meeting and sits in the corner of the room picturing everyone but Lancaster naked, Peggy is the only person who returns his eye contact. I think PTA is telling us something both about Freddie's sexuality and Peggy's interpretation of who is lustful gaze might be directed at.

4) Following that, Peggy jerks off Lancaster from behind and implies that he needs to be discrete if he's to stray then she starts talking about how he and Freddie need to stop drinking so much. Again, there is the strong implication that Lancaster's feelings for Freddie are sexual in nature, that he's had affairs with men before and that Peggy's primary concern isn't having affairs but getting sloppy about perhaps revealing his true feelings for Freddie in public.

Now again, I think the way PTA subtly reveals those details is interesting and has caused people to perhaps overthink the last scene between Dodd and Quell. I think it is EXACTLY what it seems like. Dodd isn't just asking Quell to follow him. He's asking him to submit to him in the relationship the way he wants him to, and Quell simply can't do that because he doesn't feel the same way for many reasons.

For Dodd, religion is about control and submission. For Freddie, it's about self actualization. But Dodd can never really master Freddie because he doesn't truly want to understand him. He just wants Freddie's submission.

The interesting thing is that Dodd does help Freddie grow. I think Freddie sort of figures out why he ran from Doris. I think the sexual encounter he has at the end of the movie is actually pretty hopeful. I think he's begun to bridge the gap between how he lusts for women and how he interacts with them.

But I found their last encounter kind of sad, in that Lancaster can never really truly come out and say he's in love with Freddie except by singing him that song.

Anyway, I loved the movie. I think it's one of the most open to interpretation movies I've ever seen which is part of what makes it so fun to dissect. But I definitely don't buy the idea that PTA is throwing things in just to throw people off. His choices are way too deliberate here for that.

Post by Bishop on Feb 8, 2013 10:43:09 GMT -5

I don't think that my old post was implying that themes were thrown in to "throw people off", just that as it seemed to me at the time, certain concepts in there that I couldn't quite connect the dots on (some of the more bizarre sexual stuff). I hadn't had the chance to readdress it since the second time I saw it, but I more or less agree with what you say here and how you break it down, Dudezer. It really is one of the most misunderstood movies in quite a while, at least that has received a wide theatrical release.

Post by tackitt on Feb 8, 2013 11:44:57 GMT -5

I can't believe it took me so long to see Moonrise Kingdom, but it was another awesome effort by Wes. I thought the MVP was Edward Norton and Schwartzman. I wanted Schwartzman's character to be a larger part of the story just so I could get a few more laughs from him. Overall, solid writing, solid acting (especially the kids in a nice surprise), and the style was awesome Anderson.

I loved Fantastic Mr. Fox & Rushmore is a favorite as well but didn't go away from this one reeling. It was off beat enough and had all the Anderson earmarks but I couldn't really find much point to it all. It seems the supporting characters professions being so archetypally reflected through their personalities should amount to something when interrelated but I at least failed to determine any rhyme or reason to the events which played out.

I think the "typical" characters you referred to are supposed to be juxtaposed against Sam and Suzy. Utimatey, they don't find their "place" in those worlds they come from so they break away and rebel from it. I think that's the purpose those personalities serve. And at the end of the movie some of those adults have changed as a result of these two kids and their "adventure." Just my two cents.

Post by Bishop on Feb 11, 2013 11:11:20 GMT -5

Beasts of the Southern Wild - I thought this was great, all around. It was a little hard to watch and understand in spots... mixed signals/messages on child abuse, alcoholism, prostitution sort of made it a little confusing. But, wow, fantastic editing in this thing, and some damn good acting, and I loved that it didn't have this weighty script to it. The movie flows organically and it was over before I could finish my 8oz glass of soda that I poured before the film finished... just flew by. Great movie, highly recommended, just very very cool... suspend disbelief and follow this odd fairy tail of sorts. Easily a **** out of 5 movie, deserving of all acclaim it has been getting. (I would elaborate more, but my memory isn't working this morning very well)

Compliance - Want to talk about a tough sit... I thought this was a pretty well made movie, with a few good performances, and a script that works for what the movie was trying to express. The characters are idiots, but if they weren't, the movie wouldn't work as well as it does (reminded me of how good Coen Bros are at making dumb characters that work). Parts are humorous, and others are a decent bit disturbing, some scenes are even a combination of both. I was glued to the scree, even though you pretty much knew how things would turn out with a lot of obvious foreshadowing and set up of props. I don't think this is an easy movie to recommend, but it's worth the 1hr 30min sit if you feel you can stomach some of the creepy stupidity of this movie. I'll give it a *** out of 5, it does what it sets out to do well enough, and this is one you're liable to not forget too terribly soon.

Post by Mista Don't Play on Feb 17, 2013 10:57:40 GMT -5

The lady and I saw Side Effects yesterday afternoon. Very solid film, somewhat predictable at points, but well done, nonetheless. It took a while to start clicking for me, but once it did, I was in. Jude Law was great.

Post by Bishop on Feb 24, 2013 10:05:19 GMT -5

Watched the Independent Spirit Awards (or whatever they're called). Surprise surprise, Silver Linings Playbooks swept the ceremony... however, good for The Sessions with Helen Hunt and John Hawkes winning for their respective performances. It was a pretty lame duck telecast, with the only notable things being John Hawkes acting like he was going to take his pants off, the writer of Safety Not Guaranteed getting hammered and his speech having to be edited down, and Andy Samberg (a person that I mostly find annoying and painfully unfunny) taking a swipe at The Lumineers' originality or lack thereof (something to the effect of "can't escape that Silver Linings Playbook commercial, with that Lumineers song... so catchy. You know, I like The Lumineers because they're like Mumford and Sons" and he then stares at the camera for a few seconds and moves on to his next joke. Made me grin.)

Post by Bishop on Feb 28, 2013 22:42:04 GMT -5

I saw John Dies At The End this afternoon... I liked it more than I thought I would (considering the director), but I still walked away from it wanting to watch Frank Henenlotter's Brain Damage. Very similar themes and plot elements, but with a slightly less hokey tone... and it's way funnier. I'd give it a **3/4... noble effort for a modern horror comedy, but lacking in originality, and there are times that this is just jarringly hokey. Some great practical effects are the real highlight here.

Post by notdarkyet on Mar 3, 2013 22:38:26 GMT -5

Just got done watching 'End of Watch' and it's great. The characters and situations are so real and well played that it totally makes up for the documentary style filmmaking that usually gets on my nerves. Definitely check it out!

Post by mizvalentine on Mar 4, 2013 12:45:49 GMT -5

TCM showed Hal Ashby's "The Landlord" last night. I've been trying to see it forever...its been hard to find. Really solid film about gentrification and race in 1970 NYC (Park Slope, Brooklyn to be precise). My mom is from Park Slope, way before it was a fancy place to live, and she was living there through when the movie takes place.... so it was really interesting to see shots of her old hood. The film definitely has its problems...I thought the two female leads were a little two dimensional, whereas the supporting women (Pearl Bailey and Lee Grant) were fantastic. Beau Bridges was awesome, that guy never gets the credit he deserves. Anyway, if you can find it...highly recommended.

Post by chicojuarz on Mar 4, 2013 13:00:38 GMT -5

Just got done watching 'End of Watch' and it's great. The characters and situations are so real and well played that it totally makes up for the documentary style filmmaking that usually gets on my nerves. Definitely check it out!

Yeah. It was much better than I expected. I would recommend it to a friend.

Post by notdarkyet on Mar 5, 2013 18:25:39 GMT -5

TCM showed Hal Ashby's "The Landlord" last night. I've been trying to see it forever...its been hard to find. Really solid film about gentrification and race in 1970 NYC (Park Slope, Brooklyn to be precise). My mom is from Park Slope, way before it was a fancy place to live, and she was living there through when the movie takes place.... so it was really interesting to see shots of her old hood. The film definitely has its problems...I thought the two female leads were a little two dimensional, whereas the supporting women (Pearl Bailey and Lee Grant) were fantastic. Beau Bridges was awesome, that guy never gets the credit he deserves. Anyway, if you can find it...highly recommended.

This is the third Hal Ashby reference I've seen in the past month. Why so much attention seemingly all of a sudden?

Post by Bishop on Mar 5, 2013 18:40:30 GMT -5

I don't know, but "The Last Detail" is one of my all time favorite movies, and "Harold and Maude" and "Being There" are classics as well. Actually, the other week "8 Million Ways To Die" was on TV, so I DVR'd it... never seen it before.